Title : India’s War: The Making of Modern
South Asia 1939-1945
Author : Srinath Raghavan
Publisher : Penguin
Pages: : 553
Price :
Rs 699
“History
will be kind to me”, famously declared Winston Churchill, Britain’s prime
minister through much of World War II (hereafter WW II), “for I intend to write
it myself.”
Churchill,
it turns out, meant precisely what he said. An entire post-WW-II generation in
the Anglophone world grew up with the wartime narrative of a heroic, embattled
Britain thwarting a rapacious Germany, until a reluctant United States entered
the conflict and delivered the coup de grace. This entirely fictional account
was first revised by the realisation that Russia, not the western allies, suffered
the heaviest casualties by far, fought the most horrific battles and won the
most crucial victories. Without Stalin, historians realised, Hitler would have handily
prevailed in Europe.
A more contemporary
wave of revisionism has centred on India’s role. Last year Oxford University
historian, Yasmin Khan, published her book, “The Raj at War: A People's History of India's Second World War”, which
highlighted how central India was to Britain’s war effort. India contributed
2.5 million soldiers, the largest volunteer army in world history. British
taxes and levies, such as the eponymous “War Fund”, imposed a crushing burden
on India’s poverty-stricken peasantry, essentially financing Britain’s war in
Asia. Khan summed up: “Britain did not fight the Second World War, the British
Empire did.”
Also last
year, journalist Raghu Karnad published another people-based account: “Farthest Field: An Indian Story of the
Second World War”, which captivatingly recounts the personal dimensions of
the war through the documented accounts of three close comrades who served in
different theatres.
Now we have
Srinath Raghavan’s riveting account of India’s WW II, in which he juxtaposes a detailed
campaign history with the backdrop of India’s independence struggle that was running
its penultimate lap through the war. Raghavan notes that earlier accounts have not
recounted the military saga in sufficient detail. He writes: “Almost all
[earlier accounts] treat the Second World War as little more than mood music in
the drama of India’s advance towards independence and partition.”
Setting out
to write a “single volume that presents a rounded narrative, bringing in the
manifold dimensions of the war”, Raghavan has burnished his credentials as an
accomplished historiographer. His impeccable research into the events of that
period is enhanced by his years of military service, the experience adding
texture and feel to his military narrative. He describes campaigns and key
battles in enough detail to satisfy a military history enthusiast, but without
going into a blow-by-blow account that is already available in “pure” military
histories, such as Field Marshal Viscount Slim’s classic account of the Burma
Campaign --- “Defeat into Victory.” In
addition, Raghavan skilfully weaves together the unfolding political, military,
economic and social developments during that tumultuous period to tell the
holistic story that he set out to.
For
example, 1942 was a low point in the war for Britain, with military reverses in
North Africa and Burma, the Japanese advancing towards India, the abortive
Cripps Mission, the launch of the Quit India movement, and Subhas Chandra
Bose’s mission to Berlin, during which he proposed that Germany and Japan
intercede as benefactors of India. Raghavan deploys figures to describe the disheartened
public mood. Of Calcutta’s 2.1 million people, 700,000 to 800,000 fled after just
five minor air raids on the city, in which Japanese bombers dropped 160 bombs. As
foreboding spread across India, workers in Bombay, which “was not so much as
grazed by a Japanese bomb”, began despatching women and children to their
villages. The broadening pessimism between 1939 and 1943 was highlighted by
withdrawals from Indian banks, which consistently exceeded deposits. The number
of post office savings accounts fell from 4.2 million in 1938-39 to 2.8 million
in 1943-44. It was almost inevitable that British resolve to hold onto India
would diminish.
Adding pace,
style and readability to the book are well-researched little cameos that seldom
feature in military histories, like the description of the rigid segregation of
white and coloured American soldiers, which was also mirrored in the Indian attitudes
towards the “Negros”. Another section describes the training in Ramgarh, Bihar,
of 10,000 Chinese Kuomintang troops, who had escaped the advancing Japanese by retreating
through Burma into India. Overseeing this training was the famously acerbic
American commander, General Joseph Stilwell, whose acid tongue earned him the
sobriquet of “Vinegar Joe”. After the supercilious Kuomintang chief, Chiang
Kai-Shek bestowed his approval on the already on-going training, Stilwell wrote
in his diary: “Why shouldn’t he be [happy], the little jackass? We are doing
our damndest to help him and he makes his approval look like a tremendous
concession.”
Also
described is the inevitable friction between British troops stationed in India
and the lavishly paid Americans. Earlier histories recount British animosity
for US soldiers in England during the war, who were disliked because: “they are
overpaid, overfed, oversexed and over here.” Similar complaints, phrased only
slightly less pithily, were prevalent in India.
One of the
strongest features of the book is its emphasis on the cost of the war and its
effects on India’s economy. Who would pay for the war was an important
question, given that a colony was going to war on behalf of an imperial power,
and the scale of India’s manpower mobilisation and diversion of its economy
towards the war effort. It was decided in 1940 that India would bear only a
fixed amount, representing the military’s peacetime cost, as well as a one-off
payment of Rs 10 million (a substantial sum in those days) for maintaining
troops abroad. Britain was to shoulder the cost of additional forces raised for
the war, and of military stores supplied by India. But the collapse of Allied
resistance in Europe and Japan’s entry into the war saw India taking up the
burden. By 1942-43, India was paying more than Britain towards the war,
transforming its relationship with Britain from a debtor to a creditor --- with
Britain owing it a mind-boggling 1.3 billion pounds by the end of the war. As
the author notes, “The economic rationale of the Indian empire, if ever there
was one, evaporated in the white heat of war.”
The author
points out in a short, but useful, epilogue to the book that WW-2 reinforced
amongst leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru the realisation that India was a pivot of
Asian security. Arguing in 1946 for a permanent seat on the UN Security
Council, Nehru noted, “It is India that counts in the defence and security of
these regions far more than any other country.” Yet the experience of WW-2 was
not entirely positive, resulting in the militarisation of millions of men. In
the bloody partition of India that unfolded after the war, these military
skills were evident in the slaughter of up to a million innocents.
I am so happy with India's new generation. Finally Srinath has said what is obvious to those familiar with WW2
ReplyDeleteIndeed, India would have provided 5-million men had it been asked. This was not for the love of the British. Somehow people dont know India has always been a nation of warriors, fighting is in our blood.
Not being a historian, I've never been able to prove a suspicion that UK did not want an even bigger Indian Army because the independence thing was roiling the nature. The revelations about the financial side, I had no clue about. I did know India had a big surplus with UK; INR was initially freely convertible. Nehru decided to use the surplus for investment and rupee convertibility could not be sustained.
BTW, I'd always believed two Indian divisions were part of the array for the invasion of Japan, 4th for sure and possibly 8th. MacArthur, however, did not want "colored" troops. One assumes this was because he didnt want American colored troops to get ideas.
Sigh. Let's not get too carried away here. Of course the British Empire fought the war and not 'plucky, little Britain alone.' Of course the arch-racist Churchill downplayed the 'non-white' contribution to the war effort; he also dissed the Australians, the New Zealanders and the Canadians as well.
ReplyDeleteAll this being said, the UK had something like 384,000 war deaths (all causes), Canada 42,000, Australia 40,000, New Zealand 12,000. And the Indian Army? At 2.3 million, the world's largest volunteer force? 87,000. In terms of its population, 87,000 is barely a bump in the road that you can't even really feel as you drive over it. If you count the Great Bengal Famine, the death toll gets up into the millions but that is not exactly contributing to the defeat of the Japanese.
In terms of its total population, New Zealand had a military death rate of 0.718%. If India had had similar casualties, its military deaths would have been 2.7 million. Larger than the entire Indian Army.
But this is a clearly unrealistic figure. No one was more loyal to the Empire than New Zealand. And they proved their loyalty in a way that is unfalsifiable: they died for the Empire.
If you use the same military death rate as the UK (0.8034%), India should have had.... Oops, even more military deaths.
Clearly without India Britain could not have fought the Japanese but this was a sideshow. Defeating Japan was an American venture.